Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4B - 15211 Edinborough Ave Variance 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: October 14, 2024 AGENDA #: 4B PREPARED BY: PRESENTED BY: PAUL MORETTO, PLANNER PAUL MORETTO AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTIION AP- PROVING VARIANCES FROM THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK AND MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE FOR A PROPERTY IN THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT DISCUSSION: Introduction Pamela Karahalios, the owner of the subject property, is requesting variances to allow for the construction of a new single-family home on a property located at 15211 Edinborough Avenue NE. The property is located south of Lords Street, and west of Quaker Trail. The following variances are requested with the pro- posed survey: • A 0.1-foot variance from the minimum 15-foot sum of the side yards on the nonconforming to the adjoining lot line to the east. (Section 1123.201 (6)). • A 3.0% variance from the maximum 30% impervious surface requirement (Section 1130.405) Regulation Requirement Proposed Variance Sum of the Side Yard Setbacks 15’ min. 14.9’ 0.1’ Impervious Surface 30% max. 33% 3% History The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and is guided R-LD (Urban Low Density) on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The property is currently vacant, it previously contained a single-family cabin which was removed in 2011. On February 21, 2017, the City of Prior Lake Planning Commission held a hearing and approved Resolution 17-02 approving a variance for sum of side yard set- backs and impervious surface of 33%. The home was not built within the one- year time limit and therefore, the variance lapsed. The conditions and circum- stances that existed in 2017 are present today. Staff’s position, as found in the staff report, has not changed. Current Circumstances Setbacks: The property is 49.9 feet in width and 6,496 square feet in total area thereby making the property a nonconforming lot by width and area standards. The applicant proposes a house that is 30.0 feet in width and 50.0 in length and would remain 9.9 feet from the west and 5.0 feet from the east property line. The 2 west property line is shared with a steep sloped access drive that the local wa- tershed district and City public works use to service the outlet structure and san- itary sewer line south of the property. Additionally, the applicant has agreed that the deck on rendering will not be considered and will be removed when a building permit is applied for. Impervious Surface: The proposed impervious surface total was originally 2,254 square feet and due to the small lot area (6,496 sq. ft.) the resulting proposed impervious surface request was 34.7% of the total lot area. The applicant has agreed to reduce the driveway width to a maximum of 24 feet at the front property line so there will be 2,122 square feet of impervious or 33%. Conclusion While the City Staff believe the variances requested are warranted due to the lot constraints unique to the property and practical difficulties as stated in the find- ings in this report, a few changes are recommended. These include consideration of a variance approval no greater than 33.0% impervious surface due to the re- quired width of the driveway be no more than 24 feet and the lot line. The appli- cant agrees with this assessment. Therefore, the City Staff recommends approval of the following variances: • A 0.1-foot variance from the minimum 15-foot sum of the side yards on the nonconforming lot to the adjoining lot line to the east. (Section 1123.201 (6)). • A 3.0% variance from the maximum 30% impervious surface requirement (Section 1130.405) ISSUES: This project includes requests for variances. Subsection 1152.202 states that the Board of Adjustment may grant a variance from the strict application of the provi- sions of the Zoning Ordinance, provided that: (1) There are practical difficulties in complying with the strict terms of the Ordinance. “Practical difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting of a Variance, means the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. There are practical difficulties in complying with the strict terms of the Ordinance. This residential property has some unique characteristics including the narrow and small size of the property. Due to the required setbacks and impervious surface maximum, there would be a limited buildable area without approval of variances from the sum of the side yard setback and impervious surface maximum. (2) The granting of the Variances are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. The granting of the variances appears to be in harmony with the general purposes of the Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. A purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to “Promote the most appropriate and orderly develop- ment of the residential, business, industrial, public land, and public areas”. Furthermore, the Shoreland Ordinance (Section 1130) policy’s intent is “in the best interests of the public health, safety, and welfare to provide for the 3 wise development of shoreland of public waters.” The reasonable residen- tial house is in harmony with these purposes and policies. (3) The practical difficulty is due to circumstances unique to the property not resulting from actions of the owners of the property and is not a mere convenience to the property owner and applicant. The presence of a steep slope on the property, narrow lot width, and small lot size creates a practical difficulty for the property owner to create a rea- sonable house without the requested variances. (4) The granting of the variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or be detrimental to the health and safety of the public welfare. The granting of the variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. There are other properties in this corridor with similar slopes, nonconforming setbacks, impervious surface areas, and narrow/small lot configurations. (5) The granting of the Variances will not result in allowing any use of the property that is not permitted in the zoning district where the subject property is located. The requested variances would allow the construction of a residential dwelling which is an allowed use within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. Staff recommends the following conditions of approval: a. The variance resolution shall be recorded at Scott County. b. The proposed driveway from garage to Quaker Trail must be paved or other suitable surface in accordance with City Code. c. The proposed driveway must be no greater than 24 feet at the front prop- erty line in accordance with City Code. d. A survey will be provided to the city by the applicant with impervious sur- face and setback details prior to the issuance of a building permit. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Motion and a second to approve a resolution approving variances for 15211 Edinborough Avenue with the listed conditions. 2. Motion and a second to table or continue discussion of the item for a specific purpose as directed by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion and a second to deny the variance requests because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated practical difficulties under the zon- ing code criteria RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: Alternative #1. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Narrative 2. Location Map 3. Resolution 24-09PC 4. Proposed survey dated 1-26-2017 5. Example of housing elevation VARIANCE REQUEST REQUESTED ACTIONS FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER: 1. I request a side yard setback to the east of 5 feet, and a side yard setback to the west of 10 feet. 2. I request a modification of the impervious surface calculations from 30% increased to 34%. There are practical difficulties in complying with the strict terms of the Ordinance. “Practical difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. 1. There are practical difficulties in complying with the strict terms of the Ordinance. This residential property has some unique characteristics including the narrow lot width, and small square feet size of the property. Due to the required side yard setbacks and impervious surface maximum size limitations, without the approval of these variances, there would be a limited buildable area. The granting of these Variances are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The granting of the variances appears to be in harmony with the general purposes of the Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. A purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to “Promote the most appropriate and orderly development of the residential business, industrial, public land, and public areas”. Furthermore, the shoreland Ordinance (Section 1104) policy’s intent is “in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to provide for the wise development of shoreland of public waters.” The granting of the Variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property involved. 3. The granting of these variances would permit the owner to construct a modest, comfortable , reasonable home that is usuable for my family, and adds beauty, and value to the neighborhood. The practical difficulty is due to circumstances unique to the property not resulting from actions of the owner of the property and is not a mere convenience to the property owner. 4. The subject property has the presence of a steep slope, narrow lot width and a small lot size, which creates a practical difficulty for the property owner and her ability to construct a reasonable home without the requested variances. The granting of the Variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or be detrimental to the health and safety of the public welfare. 5. The granting of the variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, but will enhance the property and the neighborhood. There are other riparian properties in this corridor with similar slopes, nonconforming setbacks, impervious surface areas, and narrow/small lot configurations. The granting of the Variances will not result in allowing any use of the property that is not permitted in the zoning district where the subject property is located. 6. The requested variances would allow construction of a residential dwelling which is an allowed use within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. With much Appreciation I submit this application, and appreciate your time and attention. Sincerely, Pamela Karahalios 1 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 RESOLUTION 24-09PC VARIANCES FROM THE MINIMUM SIDEYARD SETBACK AND MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE FOR A PROPERTY IN THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT Motion By: Second By: WHEREAS, The Prior Lake Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment, conducted a public hearing on October 14, 2024 to consider a request from Pamela Karahalios, property owner, to approve variances on a property in the R1-SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland) Zoning District at the following property: 15211 Edinborough Avenue NE, Prior Lake, MN 55372 Lot 40, Maple Park Shore Acres, Scott County, Minnesota. (PID 25-036-035-0) WHEREAS, Notice of the public hearing on said variance request was duly published in accordance with the applicable Prior Lake Ordinances; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission proceeded to hear all persons interested in this variance request, and persons interested were afforded the opportunity to present their views and objections related to the variance request; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the application for the variance as contained in Case #DEV24-000030 and held a hearing thereon on October 14, 2024; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTING AS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA as follows: 1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein. 2. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the following findings: a. There are practical difficulties in complying with the strict terms of the Ordinance. “Practical difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting of a Variance, means the property owner proposes to use the property in a 2 reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. There are practical difficulties in complying with the strict terms of the Ordinance. This residential property has some unique characteristics including the narrow and small size of the property. Due to the required setbacks and impervious surface maximum, there would be a limited buildable area without approval of variances from the sum of the side yard setback and impervious surface maximum. b. The granting of the Variances are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. The granting of the variances appears to be in harmony with the general purposes of the Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. A purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to “Promote the most appropriate and orderly development of the residential, business, industrial, public land, and public areas”. Furthermore, the Shoreland Ordinance (Section 1130) policy’s intent is “in the best interests of the public health, safety, and welfare to provide for the wise development of shoreland of public waters.” The reasonable residential house is in harmony with these purposes and policies. c. The practical difficulty is due to circumstances unique to the property not resulting from actions of the owners of the property and is not a mere convenience to the property owner and applicant. The presence of a steep slope on the property, narrow lot width, and small lot size creates a practical difficulty for the property owner to create a reasonable house without the requested variances. d. The granting of the variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or be detrimental to the health and safety of the public welfare. The granting of the variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. There are other properties in this corridor with similar slopes, nonconforming setbacks, impervious surface areas, and narrow/small lot configurations. e. The granting of the Variances will not result in allowing any use of the property that is not permitted in the zoning district where the subject property is located. The requested variances would allow the construction of a residential dwelling which is an allowed use within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. 3. Based upon the findings set forth herein, the Planning Commission hereby approves the following variances to allow construction of a single-family dwelling in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District: a. A 0.1-foot variance from the minimum 15-foot sum of the side yards on the nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot to the east. (Section 1123.201 (6)). b. A 3.0% variance from the maximum 30% impervious surface requirement (Section 1130.405) 4. The variances are subject to the following conditions of approval: a. The variance resolution shall be recorded at Scott County. b. The proposed driveway from garage to Quaker Trail must be paved or other suitable surface in accordance with City Code. c. The proposed driveway must be no greater than 24 feet at the front property line in accordance with City Code. d. A survey will be provided to the city by the applicant with impervious surface and setback details prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024. _______________________________ Jason Tschetter, Commission Chair ATTEST: _________________________________ Casey McCabe, Community & Economic Development Director VOTE Johnson Tennison Tschetter Kallberg Ringstad Aye ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐